English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article analyzes the perception of judges of Maranhao on judicialization of public health. This qualitative research study intends to investigate how judges perceive their performance, which decision-making parameters they adopt and what alternatives they suggest. Ten federal and state judges were interviewed, through a semi-structured interview, socio-demographic questionnaire and content analysis of data. The results show that some judges discredit the managerial skills of the government bodies. The judicial intervention in public health-related matters is considered a positive interference in the government. The right to health is conceived as a fundamental social right, and the decisions are classified as emotionally hard. There is a great tendency to defer orders. On the other hand, there is a possibility of dialogue with Public Administration.

Saúde pública e Poder Judiciário:percepções de magistrados no estado do Maranhão